Abortion Compromise? (illegal, drug, suspect, marijuana)

[remco67]

Originally Posted by RoyaleWithCheese

What happens to a baby at 18 weeks that changes whether or not it should receive legal protection?

The post was very clear on this. That at 18 weeks a fetus can start to feel pain. Therefore aborting at this point would cause pain. It's why its described as a compromise. Obviously if you are against any abortion its a meaningless compromise to you and if you are pro abortion it is also meaningless to you. the poster talks about this as well how 60% of people are in the middle.

Now most people who seem to be voting No on this seem to be because they believe in State Rights over Federal not on the actual issue of abortion. This is my view as well.

[kayanne]

I didn't vote (it's too complex for me to be able to vote yes or no in your poll), but I want to thank you for such a well-articulated, compassionate post. I wish we had more thoughtful, caring posters like you.

[PullMyFinger]

No compromises needed. The court is just leaving the fight to the states like they should have to begin with. No one is outlawing or restricting abortion.

[crone]

Like everything else in this culture misinformation is everywhere.

People think they are making fact based logical decision when most of the time they are being played by very sophisticated methods used by people who want to control the world.

It makes no difference. There are data aggregators selling personal information as we speak. Who enters a place that provides abortions, where they are staying, who is with them. And they have the information about who orders what online. Tatum Hunter, WaPO. If you care look it up.

[L8Gr8Apost8]

I don't have a problem with restrictions above 20 weeks or there abouts. After that I believe it's to late to terminate a healthy pregnancy but I appreciate that's my opinion. The problem I see with the restrictions is that it may impede a medically necessary abortion. Sometimes it takes longer than 20 weeks to discover the child is horribly deformed and will suffer or the mother would die. I read about a woman who had a third trimester abortion because the deformity the baby had was so bad the doctor told the mother it was unlikely they could keep the child out of pain while it wasted away in a NIC unit. She was excited about the pregnancy and she grieved the loss just like any parent. She said it was hard to get an abortion that late. They shot her up with something that stopped the heart then she delivered. She said that she was willing to suffer the weight of her descision instead of watching her daughter suffer. I want no part of getting in between that.

[QuakerBaker]

Originally Posted by RoyaleWithCheese

What happens to a baby at 18 weeks that changes whether or not it should receive legal protection?

Simply a compromise based on when science says a baby in the womb feels physical pain. Abortions after this point would cause pain to the fetus.

My English teachers always talked about being on the "right side of human history." It seems like human history is the expansion of personhood status to more and more individuals, whereas many people in the days of medieval Europe weren't legally on footing as their rights were at the whim of a monarch. Abolishing slavery, women's rights, transrights, civil rights, freedom of religion, etc. Why wouldn't this historical expansion of personhood status expand to the unborn?

Two babies were both conceived on the same day and are 8 and a half months in. One is induced into labor early for whatever reason. Everyone smiles and says what a lovely baby as it opens its eyes. It has legal protection. The other baby in some states can have its neck snipped and killed....or if unwanted could be induced into labor and given up for adoption. Why does one have legal protections and not the other one?

Originally Posted by UNC4Me

I would it’s yes if there was an added exception for abortion past 18 weeks for fetal anomalies inconsistent with life outside the womb. The anatomy scan that finds these type of anomalies happens at the earliest at 18 weeks. I have a close friend whose daughter found out at her scan that her baby lacked a developed brain. It was horrific for her to go through a late term abortion, but the more horrific thing would have been having to carry a baby for another 20 weeks and go through labor knowing the baby would die immediately.

I’m good with the rest of what you suggest, but this type exception should absolutely be allowed.

And Thank You for including added social safety nets for babies and pregnant women. That is very much needed in many places.

Great point! You added some solid thoughts that slipped through my brain! I edited to add your point in.

Originally Posted by JenaS62

Yep. Also why I voted no. 18 weeks and beyond is revolting to me. I am in the no more than 8 - 12 week camp.

I understand and I agree. Just trying to find compromise.

Originally Posted by PullMyFinger

No compromises needed. The court is just leaving the fight to the states like they should have to begin with. No one is outlawing or restricting abortion.

If this happens and it goes back to the states....won't the states be having these same discussions on their own? Therefore we will need 50 compromises, 1 for each state. A compromise should be where both sides get something, not one side wins it all and the other loses it all.

[Volobjectitarian]

Abortion law ~= speed limits ~= state tax rates ~= local zoning regs ~= blue laws on Sundays --> NOT THE PURVIEW OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

I voted no. Abortion is one of about a gazillion things that is not the purview of the federal government. It is not enumerated in the US Constitution and the 10th Amendment is quite clear on who has the power over that which IS NOT enumerated.

The "compromise" suggestions always take the form of "OK, we have to violate the 10th Amendment, so let's come to a middle ground on the best way to ignore the Constitution."

The actual compromise IS BAKED RIGHT INTO the 10th Amendment. 50 sovereign states choosing individually what their state will do on abortion and about a gazillion other things. You could have 50 different solutions, which is 48 more than the binary violation offered above.

10th Amendment. That's your compromise. Madison already solved this problem and he did it more than 200 years ago.

[Toxic Waltz]

Overturning Roe v Wade is the compromise, as it doesn't ban abortion outright it just leaves it up to the states.

[ClaraC]

There are not enough choices in this poll.

I support abortion on demand for up to 12 weeks, although at that time I fully realize the embryo is a tiny human being, I still think the mom has the right to decide not to carry a full term pregnancy.

I also support a mother who finds out her much wanted baby has a condition that will not allow it to survive outside the womb, or will severely reduce his quality of a short life if he survives to full term. BUT, as a society we can't go deciding that a baby with a disability is ok to abort, but a baby with no predictable disability must be carried to term. That's the stuff of Nazi germany, and we can't do that.

So. We're left with abortion on demand in the first trimester, with some clinics being willing to abort after that based on their own criteria and consciences.

Also I don't know what saf means.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by PullMyFinger

No compromises needed. The court is just leaving the fight to the states like they should have to begin with. No one is outlawing or restricting abortion.

Well, that's not true.

13 states intend to outlaw abortion outright, with many others intending to severely restrict it.